* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Do you agree with the other changes (ColId -> SchemaName, ColId ->=20
> > SavePointId) ?
> I don't really see the value of them.  They add some marginal
> documentation I suppose, but they also make the grammar bigger and
> slower.  A more substantial objection to the practice is that it can
> introduce needless shift/reduce conflicts, by forcing the parser into
> making unnecessary decisions before it has enough context to
> determine what kind of name a particular token really is.

Perhaps the name of 'ColId' should be changed then.  At least to me that
comes across as 'Column Identifier', and apparently some others thought
it wasn't appropriate for user names (UserId existed and was mapped to 
ColId prior to my patch).  Personally, I'd just like it to be
consistent, when I was looking at how to add the grammar for group
ownership group names were identified in one place as 'ColId' and another
as 'UserId', iirc.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to